The Role of Polycentric Governance, Public-Private-Civil Partnerships, and Citizen Science as Developed by the C2IMPRESS Project in Building Disaster Resilient Societies

Year 2024, Volume: 44 Issue: 1, 1 - 16, 26.08.2024

Esmée Liesbeth Klink João Lutas Craveiro

https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2024.44.1.0017

Abstract

The destructive impacts of natural hazards challenge communities. This study investigates how polycentric governance, publicprivate civil partnerships and citizen science can enforce socially resilient communities despite natural hazards. To understand the ways in which these participatory mechanisms can enforce social resilience, literature on the intricate concepts of social resilience and vulnerability and their confluence is conducted. Moreover, polycentric governance, public-private-civil partnerships and citizen science mechanisms and their benefits and disadvantages are considered. This study will demonstrate that the social resilience aspects of reactive capacity, leadership, community cohesion and efficacy, community networks, and system-level responses are found in all of the participatory mechanisms. Exploitation of economic, social, and cultural capital is reflected only in public-private-civil partnership models, and place attachment and mobility are revealed only in polycentric governance. Finally, polycentric governance and citizen science also entail characteristics of local environmental know-how. Although all three mechanisms contribute significantly to social resilience, the actual development of these participatory mechanisms on social resilience remains difficult to measure.

Keywords

social resilience , polycentric governance , public-private-civil partnerships , citizen science , natural hazards

References

• Adger, W. N. (1999). Social vulnerability to climate change and extremes in coastal Vietnam. World Development, 27, 249-269 google scholar
• Andersson, K. P., & Ostrom, E. (2008). Analyzing decentralized resource regimes from a polycentric perspective. Policy Sciences, 41, 71-93. google scholar
• Bergstrand, K., Mayer, B., Brumback, B., & Zhang, Y. (2015). Assessing the Relationship Between Social Vulnerability and Community Resilience to Hazards. Social Indicators Research, 122(2), 391-409. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24721426 google scholar
• Birner, R., & Wittmer, H. (2006). Better public sector governance through partnership with the private sector and civil society: The case of Guatemala’s forest administration. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 72(4), 459-472. google scholar
• Bollig, M. (2014). Resilience — analytical tool, bridging concept or development goal? anthropological perspectives on the use of a border object. Zeitschrift Für Ethnologie, 139(2), 253-279. http:// www.jstor.org/stable/24365029 google scholar
• Bonney, R., Cooper, C. B., Dickinson, J., Kelling, S., Phillips, T., Rosenberg, K. V., & Shirk, J. (2009). Citizen science: a developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. BioScience, 59(11), 977-984. google scholar
• Brand, F., & Jax, K. (2007) Focusing the meaning(s) of resilience: Resilience as descriptive concept and a boundary object. Ecology&Society 12(1), 23. google scholar
• Cohn, J. P. (2008). Citizen science: can volunteers do real research? BioScience, 58(3), 192-197. https://doi.org/10.1641/b580303 google scholar
• Cutter, S. (1996). Societal vulnerability to environmental hazards. Progress in Human Geography, 20, 529-539. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/030913259602000407 google scholar
• Cutter, S. L., Boruff, B. J., & Shirley, W. L. (2003). Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Social Science Quarterly, 84, 242-261. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.8402002 google scholar
• Faulkner, L., Brown, K., & Quinn, T. (2018). Analyzing community resilience as an emergent property of dynamic social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 23(1). https://www.jstor.org/ stable/26799048 google scholar
• Folke, C., Jansson, Â., Rockström, J., Olsson, P., Carpenter, S. R., Chapin, F. S., Crepin, A.-S., Daily, G., Danell, K., Ebbesson, J., Elmqvist, T., Galaz, V., Moberg, F., Nilsson, M., Österblom, H., Ostrom, E., Persson, Â., Peterson, G., Polasky, S., Steffen, W., Walker, B., Westley, F. (2011). Reconnecting to the biosphere. Ambio, 40(7), 719-738. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41417333 google scholar
• Hecker, S., Haklay, M., Bowser, A., Makuch, Z., Vogel, J., & Bonn, A. (2018). Innovation in open science, society and policy-setting the agenda for citizen science. In S. Hecker, M. Haklay, A. Bowser, Z. Makuch, J. Vogel, & A. Bonn (Eds.), Citizen science: innovation in open science, society and policy (pp. 1-23). UCL Press. google scholar
• Hewitt, K. (2014). Regions of risk: A geographical introduction to disasters. Routledge. google scholar
• Hossain, S., Spurway, K., Zwi, A. B., Huq, N. L., Mamun, R., Islam, R., ... & Adams, A. M. (2017). What is the impact of urbanisation on risk of, and vulnerability to, natural disasters? What are the effective approaches for reducing exposure of urban population to disaster risks, EPPI-Centre. Social Science Research Unit, UCL Institute of Education, University College London. google scholar
• Keck, M., & Sakdapolrak, P. (2013). What is social resilience? Lessons learned and ways forward. Erdkunde, 67(1), 5-19. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23595352 google scholar
• Maru, Y. T., Smith, M. S., Sparrow, A., Pinho, P. F., & Dube, O. P. (2014). A linked vulnerability and resilience framework for adaptation pathways in remote disadvantaged communities. Global Environmental Change, 28, 337-350. google scholar
• McGinnis, M. D., & Walker, J. M. (2010). Foundations of the Ostrom workshop: institutional analysis, polycentricity, and self-governance of the commons. Public Choice, 143(3/4), 293-301. http:// www.jstor.org/stable/40661023 google scholar
• Miller, F., Osbahr, H., Boyd, E., Thomalla, F., Bharwani, S., Ziervogel, G., Walker, B., Birkmann, J., van der Leeuw, S., Rockström, J., Hinkel, J., Downing, T., Folke, C., & Nelson, D. (2010). Resilience and vulnerability: complementary or conflicting concepts? Ecology and Society, 15(3). http://www.jstor.org/stable/26268184 google scholar
• Morrow, B. H. (1999). Identifying and mapping community vulnerability. Disasters, 23, 1-18. https:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/ 1467-7717.00102 google scholar
• Obrist, B., Pfeiffer, C., & Henley, R. (2010). Multi-layered social resilience: A new approach in mitigation research. Progress in Development Studies, 10(4), 283-293. google scholar
• Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press. google scholar
• Ostrom, E. (2010). Beyond markets and states: polycentric governance of complex economic systems. The American Economic Review, 100(3), 641-672. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27871226 google scholar
• Ostrom, E. (2017). Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. In Global justice (pp. 423-430). Routledge. google scholar
• Peduzzi, P., Dao, H., Herold, C., & Mouton, F. (2009). Assessing global exposure and vulnerability towards natural hazards: The disaster risk index. Natural Hazards and Earth Systems Sciences, 9, 1149-1159. https://dx.doi.org/10.5194/nhess-9-1149-2009 google scholar
• Robinson, L. D., Cawthray, J. L., West, S. E., Bonn, A., & Ansine, J. (2018). Ten principles of citizen science. In A. Bonn, S. Hecker, M. Haklay, A. Bowser, Z. Makuch, & J. Vogel (Eds.), Citizen science: innovation in open science, society and policy (pp. 27-40). UCL Press. http://www.jstor. org/stable/j.ctv550cf2.9 google scholar
• Saja, A. A., Teo, M., Goonetilleke, A., & Ziyath, A. M. (2018). An inclusive and adaptive framework for measuring social resilience to disasters. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 28, 862-873. google scholar